Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abortion is a private medical procedure decided by the individual woman with counsel by her physician. It is also none of my or anyone else's business.
That, of course, was not the topic.
I'll throw out my own abortion theory.
A child one month after conception is worth less (and should have less legal protection) than one eight months after conception. I can't see much difference in legal status between a child immediately before and immediately after birth.
A child one day after birth should have less in the way of medical resources thrown at him/her than a 20 year old with health problems. By the same token, an 80 year old should receive less care than a 20 year old. We do live in a world of limited resources.
Mine is you should have to have a license to have children. You should have to demonstrate a clean, safe environment and a steady income. Violation results in the child going out for adoption to a responsible family. No exceptions. You need a license to hunt, fish and get married but any idiot can have a child.
Also, prison time for fathering children and not supporting them. And that time to be spent working to pay back the state for supporting the child.
For me it is a state issue, Prop 13 that keeps property taxes artificially low for long time residents.
I think it should be abolished so everyone pays the same property taxes. The people who usually agree with me re tax policy suddenly change their tune when one of the perks they enjoy is getting the axe.
Making this change would actually cause my own taxes to increase, but that is the cost of being intellectually honest and wanting a fair tax system.
A child one month after conception is worth less (and should have less legal protection) than one eight months after conception. I can't see much difference in legal status between a child immediately before and immediately after birth.
A child one day after birth should have less in the way of medical resources thrown at him/her than a 20 year old with health problems. By the same token, an 80 year old should receive less care than a 20 year old. We do live in a world of limited resources.
It's not so clear cut. A new born with a fixable defect can go on to live a long and productive life. Likewise, an healthy, mentally competent 80 year old with a fixable defect can live many more productive years. Each case needs to be decided according to an agreed upon rubric - generalizations are useless.
For me it is a state issue, Prop 13 that keeps property taxes artificially low for long time residents.
I think it should be abolished so everyone pays the same property taxes. The people who usually agree with me re tax policy suddenly change their tune when one of the perks they enjoy is getting the axe.
Making this change would actually cause my own taxes to increase, but that is the cost of being intellectually honest and wanting a fair tax system.
The intent of laws like Prop 13 is to prevent retirees on limited incomes from being taxed out of their homes. However, I and many of my retired friends are living on incomes that are equal to or greater than our pre-retirement incomes, and we could easily afford the increased tax rate (taxes on my home would probably double). So, I would agree that limited income = reduced property tax, for everyone else, property taxes should be levied equally.
Whether my opinons are popular or not seem to depend on who is the president at the time.
As an example, I believe the welfare programs we undertook for Wall Street are wrong. If we had a (R) president I'd find a lot of support. Since we have a (D) president I find little support in that position.
The intent of laws like Prop 13 is to prevent retirees on limited incomes from being taxed out of their homes. However, I and many of my retired friends are living on incomes that are equal to or greater than our pre-retirement incomes, and we could easily afford the increased tax rate (taxes on my home would probably double). So, I would agree that limited income = reduced property tax, for everyone else, property taxes should be levied equally.
When a retiree is sitting in a house with a value between 500k and a million dollars they can afford the taxes that everyone else pays. I would make a compromise and be fine with a lien against the property in the amlunt of taxes owed that must be paid after the owners die. So let's say anyone over 65 with an income less than 50k can apply. The old folks get to stay in their home and the estate covers the delayed taxes, this would be interest free but adjusted for inflation.
Everybody wins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
